I am sure I can search here for why we will never get an on campus stadium. I am not against the LB. But what besides winning will help attendance? I believe some would-be fans are just sold against the LB.

Money

The city would never allow an on campus stadium.

(11-24-2014 02:20 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would never allow an on campus stadium.

Those things just aren't done here?

(11-24-2014 02:19 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Money

Will the deep pockets come out? or do they do all they can?

1. No room.
2. Not enough parking.
3. Don't want to bother the neighbors.

(11-24-2014 02:20 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would never allow an on campus stadium.

They said the same thing about Tulane.

Lapides says we need to shut up about it. So does Mike Rose.

I do remember switching from Tim McCarver to Autozone. night and day. The LB is nowhere near the bad shape McCarver was. But I do know attendance picked up. Now I am not sure how it stands (attendance) at autozone.

The city would play the, "you know where you get your utilities" card like when they strong-armed us into the pyramid fiasco.

The Heary (sp?) report is an interesting read. Still not sure why it is not considered seriously, would be a great thing. Plus the way stadiums are designed now, no reason it can't have expandable seating for the Liberty Bowl while providing a cozy, loud and loyal 40K madhouse of screaming Tigers fans.

If it's cash, totally get that. Every stadium thread we've had put the numbers on a stadium as a huge number. Costs of materials are going through the roof (I've had millwork costs on projects go up 20% in two months recently here) and rising fuel costs and labor costs are driving cost in construction pretty high right now.

So I get cash as a reason, but the political stuff should be able to be handled by a deft and reasonably solid AD's office. Since we have that in place, I'd think this is under consideration long term, but not a short term priority for many reasons.

As usual, just a hunch, not an insider and I know nothing.

(11-24-2014 02:23 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Lapides says we need to shut up about it. So does Mike Rose.

It does seem to be a moot point after the addition of Tiger Lane. I don't really care what Lapides or Rose think, but Brad Martin was opposed to it and the new president hasn't weighed in publicly. In a perfect world in would be nice to have, but I just don't see it happening in the next 20 years.

Kinda what we talked about at the game, too many people getting paid and too much red tape.

(11-24-2014 02:27 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would play the, "you know where you get your utilities" card like when they strong-armed us into the pyramid fiasco.

Shoulda built a domed stadium downtown instead of the Pigamid. Btiger was right

(11-24-2014 02:26 PM)MemTiger90 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:20 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would never allow an on campus stadium.

Bingo. We could have 200 million laying around and the city would find a way to prevent it from happening. The city would lose out on the money they make with us using the LB. Our city leaders are always looking for free money from somewhere. They would lose that free money if we built our own place. Our city became corrupt a few decades ago and will stay that way until correct leadership is put in place. Which will never happen bc of our demographic. Take that as you wish

If something is wanted and there is the will and finances to happen, it happens. There is a deal to be made, always, if the powers that be want something.

I would assume the cost in political capital and money is too high now, but I fully assume our AD's office probably has this as a long term consideration.

I'd guess it's a perennial back burner issue that will be executed if the stars align.

(11-24-2014 02:26 PM)MemTiger90 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:20 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would never allow an on campus stadium.

Bingo. We could have 200 million laying around and the city would find a way to prevent it from happening. The city would lose out on the money they make with us using the LB. Our city leaders are always looking for free money from somewhere. They would lose that free money if we built our own place. Our city became corrupt a few decades ago and will stay that way until correct leadership is put in place. Which will never happen bc of our demographic. Take that as you wish

The city ain't making money on the Liberty Bowl. It costs them WAY more to operate it than they receive in rent. Financially, razing the Liberty Bowl would be the best option for the city.

(11-24-2014 02:29 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:27 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would play the, "you know where you get your utilities" card like when they strong-armed us into the pyramid fiasco.

Shoulda built a domed stadium downtown instead of the Pigamid. Btiger was right

Ugh, domes suck. Bad, bad, bad. Gotta be open air. Retractable dome fine, but the added cost is nutty.

I always wonder when Memphis is going to chase a MLS team...

(11-24-2014 02:29 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:27 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would play the, "you know where you get your utilities" card like when they strong-armed us into the pyramid fiasco.

Shoulda built a domed stadium downtown instead of the Pigamid. Btiger was spot on.

fixt

(11-24-2014 02:31 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:29 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:27 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  The city would play the, "you know where you get your utilities" card like when they strong-armed us into the pyramid fiasco.

Shoulda built a domed stadium downtown instead of the Pigamid. Btiger was right

Ugh, domes suck. Bad, bad, bad. Gotta be open air. Retractable dome fine, but the added cost is nutty.

I always wonder when Memphis is going to chase a MLS team...

Think Final Four with a dome

In my personal opinion, there is no validity to the Liberty Bowl keeping people from coming to games. Attendance is 100% related to success. There are only 20,000 die-hard fans who buy season tickets. We have to get that ticket base up to 30,000 or 35,000. Winning teams playing good football will draw more people.

I don't think that you suddenly get 40,000 or 45, 000 fans who are willing to endure some rain, some cold, a holiday weekend, etc. to attend. "If you build it, they will come" applies in this case to a football program, rather than a stadium.

IMHO, an on-campus stadium would have little impact. If the University had 25,000 resident students living on campus, then it would be different. However, this coming game (Thanksgiving weekend) would have few students attending, no matter how you slice it.